Case 3:08-cr BTM Document 27-3 Filed 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 11
|
|
- Bernard Henderson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 MICHAEL J. MESSINA (SB# WOODS & MESSINA 0 West "C" Street, Suite 0 San Diego, CA 0 Tel. ( - Fax ( - Attorney for Defendant BENJAMIN MANUEL CUNNINGHAM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Plaintiff, BENJAMIN MANUEL CUNNINGHAM (, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (HON. BARRY T. MOSKOWITZ Defendant. I. Case No.: STATEMENT OF THE CASE 0CR0-BTM MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS On or about January, 00, the Grand Jury returned an indictment against BENJAMIN MANUEL CUNNINGHAM in Count and Count, alleging that he violated Title, United States Code, (g( and (a(, possessing a firearm that traveled in and affecting commerce, that is a Kel-tec, model P-, mm, pistol, serial number AY and violating Title, United States Code, (a, that in order to prevent the seizure of said hand Case No. 0CR0-BTM
2 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 gun, he did aid and abet or did destroy, stave, break, remove or throw overboard said firearm by hiding the firearm in a quasi remote area, that is, under a shrub in the backyard. To date some discovery has been provided to defense counsel. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On January, 00, ATF San Diego special agents (SA conducted a surveillance of OMAR JINESTA at his residence, located at Corral Canyon Road, Bonita, California. At approximately 0:0 a.m., OMAR JINESTA left the residence in a car driven by ROBERT MENDOZA. At approximately 0:0 a.m., ATF agents attempted to conduct a vehicle stop of MENDOZA and OMAR JINESTA in National City, California. MENDOZA failed to yield to law enforcement officers and fled with OMAR JINESTA, entering Interstate southbound towards Mexico. At that time, ATF agents in pursuit of MENDOZA's vehicle contacted Customs and Border Protection (CBP personnel at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, San Ysidro, California. Upon receiving ATF's warning, CBP Inspectors unsuccessfully attempted to interdict MENDOZA and OMAR JINESTA as they fled into Mexico. MENDOZA and OMAR JINESTA were subsequently arrested and detained by Mexican Customs personnel. At approximately : p.m., ATF agents took over custody of MENDOZA and OMAR JINESTA (from Mexican Authorities. OMAR JINESTA was placed under arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Simultaneous to the pursuit of JINESTA, ATF Agents PENATE and GEERDES were located outside the aforementioned JINESTA residence. While the mobile surveillance team was in pursuit of OMAR JINESTA, agents at the residence observed a Hispanic male, later identified as BENJAMIN CUNNINGHAM, come outside the house with a black plastic bag. Case No. 0CR0-BTM
3 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Agents saw CUNNINGHAM throw the bag over the back fence. CUNNINGHAM then walked around the fence to the area on a public sidewalk where he had thrown it and retrieved it. CUNNINGHAM looked around as if to see if anyone was watching him. CUNNINGHAM then took the bag behind the property and hid it in a quasi-remote wooded area several residences away. Agents then approached CUNNINGHAM and asked him about the bag. CUNNINGHAM said he had received the bag from JENNIFER JINESTA, who after receiving a phone call, told CUNNINGHAM to take the aforementioned items outside of the house and hide them. Inside the bag, agents discovered approximately one pound of suspected marijuana, two ounces of suspected cocaine, and a MM Kel-Tec handgun, serial number A, and assorted ammunition. Meanwhile, after MENDOZA and OMAR JINESTA were returned by Mexican authorities, Agents WAKELIN and MOHLER interviewed MENDOZA. MENDOZA stated that while OMAR JINESTA and he were being pursued, OMAR called his wife JENNIFER. In a post-arrest statement, after being informed of and waiving his Miranda rights, OMAR JINESTA admitted that he called his wife while fleeing to Mexico with MENDOZA. OMAR JINESTA said that he instructed his wife to get rid of the gun, ammunition, and the drugs that were at the house, because he thought police were trying to arrest him. On this same date, after being advised of her Miranda Rights, JENNIFER JINESTA told agents that, while at the house that morning, she received a call from OMAR JINESTA (her husband, telling her that he was being followed by the police. JENNIFER JINESTA admitted that during the aforementioned telephone call, OMAR instructed her to tell BEN (CUNNINGHAM to remove the gun and ammunition from their bedroom, and the bag (containing drugs from the garage, and take them out of the house. JENNIFER JINESTA stated Case No. 0CR0-BTM
4 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 she then collected the gun from her and OMAR JINESTA's bedroom drawer and the ammunition from their bedroom safe and gave them to BEN CUNNINGHAM. JENNIFER JINESTA said she then told BEN that OMAR wanted him to get the gun and drugs out of the house. JENNIFER admitted that she knew cocaine and marijuana were in the bag in the garage. JENNIFER JINESTA also admitted that she knew that her husband had been living under the alias RUBEN A. GONZALEZ for the past two years because he was a convicted felon, had previously been deported to Mexico and he was no longer allowed to legally be in the United States. On January, 00, a query of NCIC revealed that on November, 00, in the Southern District of California, OMAR JINESTA was convicted of the felony offenses of Title, United States Code, Sections and 0, Importation of Marijuana, and Title, United States Code, Section, Aiding and Abetting. On January, 00, Special Agent HARRY PENATE, an Interstate Nexus Expert, examined the aforementioned firearm and stated that it has traveled in or affected interstate commerce. III. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY A. Defendant is entitled to Discovery of Defendant's Statements Pursuant to Rule (a((a, Brady v. Maryland, U.S. (, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Defendant requests the disclosure of all statements, written, oral, and recorded, made by defendant which are in the possession, custody, or control of the government or which by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the Government, regardless of to whom the statements were made. Case No. 0CR0-BTM
5 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Defendant. This includes all rough notes of government agents, which include statements of A defendant has a right to inspect these requested statements. This has been extended to permit discovery of written summaries of the defendant's oral statements contained in handwritten notes of government agents. United States v. Johnson, F. d (d Cir. ; United States v. Bailleaux, F. d 0 ( th Cir.. B. Defendant is entitled to Disclosure of any Prior Similar Convictions or Prior Similar Acts Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (a((b provides that, upon request of the defendant, the Government shall furnish to the defendant a copy of defendant's prior criminal record, if any, as is within the possession, custody, or control of the government. Defendant makes this request. The Defendant also requests that the Government provide discovery of any prior similar acts, which the Government will intend to introduce into evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 0(b. The Defendant must have access to this information in order to make appropriate motions to exclude the use of such evidence at trial. See United States v. Cook, 0 F. d ( th Cir.. C. Defendant is entitled to examine any Documents, tangible Items, and the like which are in the Possession, Custody, or Control of the Government Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (a((c and Brady v. Maryland, U.S. (, the Defendant requests the opportunity to inspect and copy all books, papers, documents, photographs, and tangible items which are in the possession, custody, or control of the Government and which are material to the preparation of the defense intended for use by the Government as evidence in the case in chief. The Defendant further makes these requests Case No. 0CR0-BTM
6 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 pursuant to Brady v. Maryland on the ground that this evidence may provide exculpatory information that is beneficial to the Defendant in the defense against the charges in the indictment. The request includes, but is not limited to the following: All search warrants and their accompanying affidavits, as well as the opportunity to inspect the results of all searches conducted by law enforcement officers pursuant to warrants and/or otherwise (this request includes the searches of all residences, businesses, automobiles, and other locations regarding the case; all tape-recorded conversations, closed circuit television surveillance of suspects, telephone toll analysis, bank records and financial documents involving the case. This request also includes the results of all follow-up investigations regarding the above-requested evidence. These requests are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland, U.S. (. D. Due Process Exculpatory Information Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, U.S. (, Giglio v. United States, 0 U.S. 0 (, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Defendant requests disclosure of all information of whatever form, source, or nature which tends to exculpate Defendant by indicating innocence, contradicting the Government's theory of the case, and impeaching the credibility of potential government witnesses. This request specifically includes all co-conspirator statements, indicted and unindicted, all third party witness statements interviewed by government agents and/or of which the Government has custody, dominion or control. This request includes all recorded conversations, electronic, mechanical, stenographic, or otherwise, of all co-conspirators, indicted and unindicted, all defendants, and all potential witnesses whose statements are relevant to the subject matter charged in the indictment and are Case No. 0CR0-BTM
7 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 in the possession, custody, or control of the government. It also includes such statements within the meaning of U.S.C. Section 0. Defendant requests the Government to provide all statements made by all potential witnesses. The term "statements" as used in this request include tape-recorded conversations, rough notes, correspondence, memoranda, or reports prepared directly by such persons and/or by any government agents (of any government entity or attorneys. It includes all Grand Jury testimony, as sell as previous in-court and trial testimony. It includes all government debriefings of all potential witnesses. If such statements were given orally to any government agent. Defendant requests that they be committed to writing and produced forthwith. In addition, Defendant requests access to prior testimony of all government witnesses. Two statutory provisions and one major constitutional provision must be considered in resolving any questions involving compelled disclosure of government witness statements. First, the Jencks Act, U.S.C. Section 00, regulates disclosure of witness statements, as defined by the Act, and prohibits any order requiring production prior to the completion of direct examination of the witness. Second, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (a( excludes from the operation of the general discovery provisions of Rule those reports, memoranda, and internal government documents generated during the course of an investigation into the case, except as provided in the Jencks Act. The Rule does not prohibit the disclosure of such items, but states, merely, that it does not authorize them. Third, an overriding principle requires the government to disclose all exculpatory material in its possession. See Brady v. Maryland, U.S. (. Defendant makes this request under all three provisions. As part of this request, Defendant also requests the name, address and telephone number of each person the Government intends to call as a witness at trial. Additionally, Defendant Case No. 0CR0-BTM
8 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 requests the name, address and telephone number of each person who was present during or had material information regarding, any act or transaction charged in the indictment, whether or not the Government intends to call such a person as a witness at the trial. The request includes a list of all witnesses appearing before the Grand Jury in connection with this case. Advance disclosure of witnesses is essential if Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is to have any real meaning. This request is properly before the Court. See United States v. Cadet, F. d, ( th Cir. ; Wilson v. Rose, F. d ( th Cir.. Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, U.S. (; Giglio v. United States, 0 U.S. 0 (; Davis v. Alaska, U.S. 0 (, Defendant makes the following request for: All impeaching evidence such as prior records, prior inconsistent statements, evidence for bias, interest, or motive, and prior uncharged bad acts of all the potential witnesses in this case; All formal or informal promises to reward a witness, such as promises of probation, promises of monetary gain, payment of living or medical expenses, payment for transportation or promises of witness protection; All information relating to alcohol or drug abuse treatment of all potential witnesses, and all information relating to drug uses of each potential witness; All information relating to the use of aliases or fictitious names by each potential government witness; All information relating to prior acts of all potential witnesses which are probative of their character for untruthfulness within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 0(b; and, Case No. 0CR0-BTM
9 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 All information relating to contradictory statements made by all potential government witnesses or agents or representative of any law enforcement entity or other persons. E. Request for Expert Witness Information Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (a((a and Brady v. Maryland, U.S. (, Defendant requests to inspect and copy or photograph any results of reports of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests or experiments which are within the possession, custody or control of the Government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the attorney for the Government, and which reports are material to the preparation of the defense or intended for use by the Government as evidence in their case in chief at trial. In regards to the expert information, Defendant requests all rough notes, memoranda, correspondence and reports setting forth the results, whether positive or negative, of all expert analysis regarding fingerprints or any of the seized evidence, scientific analysis of any of the recorded conversations and/or closed circuit television surveillance. In regards to this latter request, Defendant requests the opportunity to perform independent scientific analysis on all recorded conversations and all closed circuit television surveillance conducted in this case. F. Defendant is entitled to Disclosure of the Evidence the Government intends to use against Defendant at Trial Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (d, Defendant requests that this Court order the Government to disclose the evidence it intends to use against Defendant at trial. This request includes any evidence which Defendant may be entitled to under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, subject to any relevant limitation prescribed by that rule. Case No. 0CR0-BTM
10 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page 0 of 0 0 IV. PRESERVE ROUGH NOTES Defendant hereby moves this Court to order: Preservation and production of rough notes of government witness interviews and the interrogatories of Defendant; and, Sanctions for destruction of any of the rough notes including the exclusion of any witness' testimony as to which the rough notes have been destroyed. The grounds for this motion are that rough interview notes must be preserved and disclosed to the defense under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule and U.S.C. Section 00. V. MISCELLANEOUS ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS A. All government forms, notes, memoranda signed by Defendant in connection with, or as a result of the arrest herein. B. Copies of all sound or video tape recordings taken of Defendant and any material witnesses during the course of investigation and arrest herein, and any and all existing transcripts thereof. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Case No. 0CR0-BTM 0
11 Case :0-cr-00-BTM Document - Filed 0//00 Page of VI. LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS Accordingly, defendant, BENJAMIN MANUEL CUNNINGHAM would ask for leave to file further motions should such motions be warranted. Respectfully submitted, 0 Dated: February, 00 S/ MICHAEL J. MESSINA MICHAEL J. MESSINA Attorney for Defendant BENJAMIN MANUEL CUNNINGHAM 0 Case No. 0CR0-BTM
Case 3:15-cr AJB Document 11 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 4
Case :-cr-0-ajb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 DONOVAN & DONOVAN Barbara M. Donovan, Esq. California State Bar Number: The Senator Building 0 West F. Street San Diego, California 0 Telephone: ( - Attorney
More informationCase 3:10-cr JAH Document 19 Filed 06/14/10 Page 1 of 6
Case :-cr-00-jah Document Filed 0// Page of LAURA E. DUFFY United States Attorney CAROLINE P. HAN Assistant U.S. Attorney California State Bar No. 00 United States Attorney's Office 0 Front Street, Room
More informationFebruary 6, United States Attorneys Office 1100 Commerce Street Dallas, Texas Re: United States v. XXXXX, No. YYYY.
February 6, 2003 United States Attorneys Office 1100 Commerce Street Dallas, Texas 75242 Dear: Re: United States v. XXXXX, No. YYYY Pursuant to the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States,
More informationIN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) VS. ) REQUEST FOR ) VOLUNTARY DISCOVERY ) (ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ) DISCOVERY) Defendant.
More informationCase 3:08-cr JM Document 10 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case :0-cr-0-JM Document Filed 0//00 Page of LEILA W. MORGAN Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. California State Bar No. Broadway, Suite 00 San Diego, CA -00 ( -/Fax: ( - E-Mail:Leila_Morgan@fd.org Attorneys
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v., Defendant(s). Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The defendant(s), appeared for
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ATTORNEY(Bar No. 102135 LAW OFFICES OF ATTORNEY 123 Main St City, California 12345 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorney for Defendant DDD, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
More informationCriminal Law Section Luncheon The Current State of Discovery in Virginia vs. The Intractable John L. Brady
Criminal Law Section Luncheon The Current State of Discovery in Virginia vs. The Intractable John L. Brady Shannon L. Taylor Commonwealth's Attorney's Office P.O. Box 90775 Henrico VA 23273-0775 Tel: 804-501-5051
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
September 22, 2015: Criminal Trial Scheduling and Discovery IN THE MATTER OF : CRIMINAL TRIAL SCHEDULING : STANDING ORDER AND DISCOVERY : The Court having considered a revised protocol for scheduling in
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY. CASE No. 07-CR-0043
Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Fax: 1-- Email: twood@callatg.com Attorney for Benjamin Jones IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Cause No. 1822-CR00642 v. ) ) ERIC GREITENS, ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT
More informationCriminal Litigation: Step-By-Step
Criminal Law & Procedure For Paralegals Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step 2 Getting Defendant Before The Court! There are four methods to getting the defendant before the court 1) Warrantless Arrest 2)
More informationORDER ON ARRAIGNMENT
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 132 Filed 10/18/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR NO. 2:10cr186-MHT
More informationRe: PEOPLE V. Indictment No Dear Justice Wolfgang:
Hon. PENNY WOLFGANG, J.S.C. Supreme Court 92 Franklin Street Buffalo, New York 14202- Re: PEOPLE V. Indictment No.0000000000 Dear Justice Wolfgang: Enclosed please find Defendant s Notice of Omnibus Motion
More informationCase 1:08-cr Document 199 Filed 11/12/2009 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 199 Filed 11/12/2009 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. No. 08 CR 888 (01 ROD BLAGOJEVICH,
More information1. BILL OF PARTICULARS, Rule 7(f). Must be made within 10 days of arraignment or when otherwise allowed by court.
PRETRIAL MOTIONS CHECKLIST BY: Thomas J. Wright 1. BILL OF PARTICULARS, Rule 7(f). Must be made within 10 days of arraignment or when otherwise allowed by court. 2. BOND - SEE RELEASE 3. CONTINUANCE /
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION No. 2:14-CR-14-D-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION No. 2:14-CR-14-D-1 v. HARRY C. MANN MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION
More informationMISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND CIRCUIT (City of St. Louis) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND CIRCUIT (City of St. Louis STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. No. 1822-CR00642 Div. 16 ERIC GREITENS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
More informationWilliam Thomas Johnson v. State of Maryland, No. 2130, September Term, 2005
HEADNOTES: William Thomas Johnson v. State of Maryland, No. 2130, September Term, 2005 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT - LACK OF STANDING TO CHALLENGE Where search and seizure warrant for
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 71 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. -against- PEOPLE'S VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 71 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK KEVIN CLOR, -against- PEOPLE'S VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM Indictment No. 05866/2011 Defendant. The
More informationCase 9:16-cr RLR Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2017 Page 1 of 6
Case 9:16-cr-80107-RLR Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. GREGORY HUBBARD / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Rice State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, DEANDRE DONTAL MCGOWAN DOB: 08/15/1985 1101 80th St E #302 Bloomington, MN 55420 Defendant. District Court 3rd Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA-1783 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Jul 17 2015 07:28:18 2014-KA-01783-COA Pages: 13 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ANDREW GRAHAM APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-KA-1783 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT KA
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT KA 07-1304 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS TIHE D. CUMMINGS ********** APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CATAHOULA, NO. 05-2432, 2433,
More informationCase: 1:13-cr Document #: 24 Filed: 04/14/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:108
Case: 1:13-cr-00720 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/14/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:108 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. Nos. 92-CF-1039 & 95-CO-488. Appeals from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0271p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. KEVIN PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Callihan, 2002-Ohio-5878.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY State of Ohio, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : Case No. 01CA2815 vs. : : DECISION AND JUDGMENT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT March 28, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff - Appellee, RAOUL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * * * * * * * * * * * MOTION TO VACATE OR CORRECT ILLEGAL SENTENCE
CHRISTOPHER JONES * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Petitioner, * v. * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * Civil No. Criminal No. CCB-14-0234 * * * * * * * * * * * MOTION TO VACATE OR
More informationAPPENDIX I SAMPLE INTERROGATORIES
APPENDIX I SAMPLE INTERROGATORIES CAUSE NO. ' IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, ' ' V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT ' ' Defendant. ' OF COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT S INTERROGATORIES TO PLANTIFF TO: PLAINTIFF,, by service
More informationNO STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY COURT LAUREN ELIZABETH DAVIS HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND ARREST
NO. 39325 STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY COURT vs. AT LAW OF LAUREN ELIZABETH DAVIS HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND ARREST TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Now comes Lauren
More informationBRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
E-Filed Document Jan 22 2014 16:10:57 2013-KA-00924-COA Pages: 10 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI LAKINTA GOLDMAN APPELLANT v. No. 2013-KA-00924-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationCAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [INSERT PROPERTY] JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF V. COUNTY, TEXAS [INSERT PROPERTY] JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES, AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to
More informationVermont Bar Association Seminar Materials. 62nd Mid-Year Meeting. Criminal Law 101
Vermont Bar Association Seminar Materials 62nd Mid-Year Meeting Criminal Law 101 March 22, 2019 Lake Morey Resort Fairlee, VT Speakers: Katelyn Atwood, Esq. Katelyn B. Atwood, Esq. Rutland County Public
More informationCase 1:14-cr Document 81 Filed in TXSD on 04/10/15 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:14-cr-00876 Document 81 Filed in TXSD on 04/10/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. CRIM. NO. B-14-876-01
More informationPeople v Stephens 2017 NY Slip Op 33021(U) February 28, 2017 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Anne E.
People v Stephens 2017 NY Slip Op 33021(U) February 28, 2017 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 16-01098-01 Judge: Anne E. Minihan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN GRAHAM, a.k.a. JOHN BOY PATTON, and VINE RICHARD MARSHALL, a.k.a. RICHARD VINE
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, TYREL LAMAR PATTERSON DOB: 04/13/1989 1818 BRYANT AVE N Minneapolis, MN 55411 Defendant. Prosecutor File No. Court File No. District
More informationCRIMINAL DEFENSE COURT PROCESS
TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE GUIDE E-BOOK CRIMINAL DEFENSE COURT PROCESS nealdavislaw.com NEAL DAVIS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CONTENTS COURT PROCESS... 3 HOW CRIMINAL CASES PROCEED... 3 PRE-TRIAL HEARINGS AND MOTIONS...
More informationJAMAL RUSSELL, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant.
Case 1:16-cr-00396-GHW Document 618 Filed 05/04118 Paae 1 of E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED 5/4/2018 UNITED STATES,
More informationPending before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Severance of Misjoined
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. THOMAS WISHER Criminal Action No. 17-45-1-LPS TRACEY DANIELS, 17-45-2-LPS Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More information15A-903. Disclosure of evidence by the State Information subject to disclosure. (a) Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order:
SUBCHAPTER IX. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE. Article 48. Discovery in the Superior Court. 15A-901. Application of Article. This Article applies to cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior court. (1973,
More informationCase: 5:16-cv JMH Doc #: 11 Filed: 07/20/16 Page: 1 of 9 - Page ID#: 58
Case: 5:16-cv-00257-JMH Doc #: 11 Filed: 07/20/16 Page: 1 of 9 - Page ID#: 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON REX JACKSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil
More informationBRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF VENTURA BRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION The following is an internal policy that addresses
More informationCite as 2018 Ark. App. 435 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV
Cite as 2018 Ark. App. 435 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-18-50 CALVIN WALLACE TERRY APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered: September 26, 2018 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
More informationPacket Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background
Packet Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background Review from Introduction to Law The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The United States Supreme Court is the final
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Sep 30 2016 10:44:44 2016-KA-00422-COA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAIRUS COLLINS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2016-KA-00422 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationCase 1:10-cr SS Document 17 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:10-cr-00136-SS Document 17 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUSTIN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VS. CAUSE NO. A-10-CR-136 (SS) PAUL EDWARD COPELAND GOVERNMENT S RESPONSE
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, MARCUS TERRELL FISCHER DOB: 02/01/1999 3927 6TH ST N MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55412 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE vs. JAMES EDWARD ALLUMS,
More informationIC Chapter 5. Search and Seizure
IC 35-33-5 Chapter 5. Search and Seizure IC 35-33-5-0.1 Application of certain amendments to chapter Sec. 0.1. The amendments made to section 5 of this chapter by P.L.17-2001 apply to all actions of a
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
cr United States v. Jones 0 0 0 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM, 0 ARGUED: AUGUST, 0 DECIDED: JUNE, 0 No. cr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. RASHAUD JONES,
More informationState of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2008CF000567
State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2008CF000567 Miguel Ayala, and Carlos Gonzales, Defendant. Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized as a Result
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, SILAS TIMOTHY MCDOUGAL DOB: 11/10/1998 304 26th AVE N Minneapolis, MN 55411 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationJOSEPH M. LATONA, ESQ. 716 BRISBANE BUILDING 403 MAIN STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK (716)
Supplemental Outline on Effective Discovery JOSEPH M. LATONA, ESQ. 716 BRISBANE BUILDING 403 MAIN STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14203 (716) 842-0416 INTRODUCTION This outline supplements the thorough course
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, versus Plaintiff - Appellee, DAMON BRIGHTMAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-4612 UNITED STATES OF
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-06023-02-CR-SJ-DW ) STEPHANIE E. DAVIS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationI am proud to share with you one of the great wins of anybody s legal career.
Dear Friend and Colleague, I am proud to share with you one of the great wins of anybody s legal career. This was the press release on February 23, 2004 from the Department of Justice: United States Attorney
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, ANTHONY LAMONT FOOTE DOB: 08/05/1992 608 SELBY AVE #4 St. Paul, MN 55101 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationCase 2:17-mj KJN Document 1 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-mj-000-kjn Document Filed 0// Page of PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney JASON HITT Assistant United States Attorney 0 I Street, Suite 0-00 Sacramento, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: ()
More informationCase 2:10-cr CM Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:10-cr-20029-CM Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case Nos. 10-20029-01-CM KENNETH G. LAIN,
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2015 USA v. Prince Isaac Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationArrest, Search, and Seizure
Criminal Law for Paralegals: Chapter 2 Introduction Tab Text Chapter 2 Arrest, Search, and Seizure Introduction This chapter addresses arrests, searches, and seizures. Both arrests and search warrants
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr TWT-AJB-6. versus
USA v. Catarino Moreno Doc. 1107415071 Case: 12-15621 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 Page: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-15621 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00251-TWT-AJB-6
More informationINDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
Indiana False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.5 et seq (as amended through P.L. 109-2014) Indiana Medicaid False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.7
More informationSPOLIATION. What to do when the state loses or destroys evidence
SPOLIATION What to do when the state loses or destroys evidence What in tarnation is spoliation? The destruction of evidence. It constitutes an obstruction of justice. The destruction, or the significant
More informationCase 1:16-cr KBJ Document 6 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cr-00232-KBJ Document 6 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. EDGAR MADDISON WELCH, Case No. 1:16-MJ-847 (GMH)
More informationPeople v Murray 2013 NY Slip Op 34063(U) March 8, 2013 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Barbara G.
People v Murray 2013 NY Slip Op 34063(U) March 8, 2013 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 12-1281-02 Judge: Barbara G. Zambelli Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-00200-06-CR-W-FJG ) MICHAEL FITZWATER, ) ) ) Defendant.
More informationCase 1:18-cr TFH Document 4 Filed 10/08/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cr-00303-TFH Document 4 Filed 10/08/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 1:18-CR-303 JACKSON ALEXANDER COSKO,
More informationIC Chapter 5. Search and Seizure
IC 35-33-5 Chapter 5. Search and Seizure IC 35-33-5-0.1 Application of certain amendments to chapter Sec. 0.1. The amendments made to section 5 of this chapter by P.L.17-2001 apply to all actions of a
More informationCase 1:08-cr SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:08-cr-00040-SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Criminal Action No. 08-40-SLR
More informationTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ) ) ) ) ) )
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff vs EDWARD WALKER Defendant CASE NO. CR 429590 MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER FRIEDMAN, J.: 1. The Court has before it a proposed
More informationColorado Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:13-cr-00492-REB Document *SEALED* 79-1 Document Filed 04/24/14 71 (Ex Parte) USDC Filed Colorado 04/22/14 Page USDC 2 of 13 Colorado Page 1 of 12 Criminal Case No. 13-cr-00492-REB UNITED STATES
More informationCriminal Law Table of Contents
Criminal Law Table of Contents Attorney - Client Relations Legal Services Retainer Agreement - Hourly Fee Appearance of Counsel Waiver of Conflict of Interest Letter Declining Representation Motion to
More informationPeople v Paulino 2018 NY Slip Op 33518(U) January 3, 2018 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Anne E. Minihan Cases posted
People v Paulino 2018 NY Slip Op 33518(U) January 3, 2018 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 16-1130 Judge: Anne E. Minihan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationIllinois and Federal Civil and Criminal Procedure Local Practice Overview. Illinois State Bar Association Basic Skills Course
Illinois and Federal Civil and Criminal Procedure Local Practice Overview Illinois State Bar Association Basic Skills Course 2009 Prepared by: J. Randall Cox Feldman, Wasser, Draper and Cox 1307 S. Seventh
More informationIN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
Edwin S. Wall, A7446 ATTORNEY AT LAW 8 East Broadway, Ste. 405 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801 523-3445 Facsimile: (801 746-5613 Electronic Notice: edwin@edwinwall.com IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-00200-01-CR-W-FJG ) WILLIAM ENEFF, ) ) ) Defendant. )
More informationFriday 30th January, 2004.
Friday 30th January, 2004. It is ordered that the Rules heretofore adopted and promulgated by this Court and now in effect be and they hereby are amended to become effective April 1, 2004. Amend Rule 3A:11
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 16-3970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAJUAN KEY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. James M. Colaw, Judge. October 16, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-2808 CHRISTOPHER ANTIAWN JONES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. James M. Colaw, Judge.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-15-2009 USA v. Troy Ponton Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1781 Follow this and additional
More informationCase 3:17-cr SI Document 68 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:17-cr-00431-SI Document 68 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAT QUOC DO, Case No. 3:17-cr-431-SI OPINION AND
More informationCross-Examination Checklist
Cross-Examination Checklist General Areas of Investigation and Document Retrieval 1. Summary of Expected Testimony 1.1 Testimony Which Can Be Disproved 1.2 Inconsistencies/absurdities 1.3 Contradiction
More information79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. Senate Bill 505
79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session Enrolled Senate Bill 505 Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
More informationHAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO State of Ohio : CASE NO.: PLAINTIFF : JUDGE: -vs- : DEFENDANT : : MOTION TO DISMISS Now comes Defendant,, by and through counsel, and hereby moves the Court to dismiss the charge
More informationCase 1:14-cr MLW Document 1 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:14-cr-10210-MLW Document 1 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS OF AMERICA ) v. ) ) 21 u.s.c. 846- ) Conspiracy to Distribute Defendant.
More informationTEMPORARY INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITHOUT MINOR CHILD(REN)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COUNTY, FLORIDA, Petitioner, Case No: Division: and, Respondent TEMPORARY INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITHOUT MINOR CHILD(REN)
More informationCriminal Litigation: Step-By-Step
Criminal Law & Procedure For Paralegals Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step Path of Criminal Cases in Queens Commencement Arraignment Pre-Trial Trial Getting The Defendant Before The Court! There are four
More informationCase 3:07-cr JM Document 25 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cr-0-JM Document Filed 0//0 Page of KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney NICOLE ACTON JONES TARA MCGRATH Assistant U.S. Attorneys California State Bar Nos., Federal Office Building 0 Front Street,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CR-UU.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-12203 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 08-20704-CR-UU FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCase 5:09-cr JHS Document 31 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 5:09-cr-00155-JHS Document 31 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : v. : CRIMINAL NO. 09-155 - 06 ABRAN
More informationCase 1:12-cv BAH Document 8-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-00919-BAH Document 8-1 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 12-919 (BAH BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, MAURICE TYRONE FOREST DOB: 12/03/1980 2929 Chicago Ave S Apt 301 Minneapolis, MN 55407 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4160 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRICK MICHAEL JACKSON, a/k/a Abdul-Jalil Mohammed, Defendant - Appellant.
More informationCase 8:06-cr DOC Document 43 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 5. United States District Court Central District of California
Case 8:06-cr-00022-DOC Document 43 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 5 United States District Court Central District of California Enter/JS-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Docket No. SA CR06-22 DOC Defendant FREDERIC
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Rice State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, JEREMIA MICHAEL ROBERTS DOB: 05/19/1986 Kuckler Foster Home 41731 10th Avenue Nerstrand, MN 55053 Defendant. District Court 3rd Judicial
More informationVideo Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com! Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of
More information